HL (Hong Kong) A challenge on the admissibility of an admission is not inconsistent with a denial that it had been made; one is question for judge, the other a question of fact for the jury. Lord Hutton aid that Lord Bridge’s speech in Ajodha was not to be read restrictively as limited to written statements or that ‘an issue of voluntariness for the judge to decide can only arise if the evidence of the prosecution suggests that the admission may be involuntary’, and
‘Whilst the statements considered by the Board in the Ajodha case were written statements, their Lordships are clearly of opinion that the principle stated by Lord Bridge applies also to oral admissions. Therefore where the prosecution alleges that the defendant made an oral admission, and the case is raised on behalf of the defendant that he did not make the oral admission and that he was ill-treated by the police before or at the time of the alleged admission, two issues are raised which are not mutually exclusive. The first issue, which is for the judge to decide, is whether, on the assumption that the alleged admission was made, it is inadmissible as being involuntary. The second issue, which is for the jury to decide if the judge rules that the alleged admission is admissible in evidence, is whether the admission was in fact made.’
Judges:
Lord Hutton
Citations:
Times 05-Aug-1997, [1997] UKPC 31
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Explained – Ajodha v The State PC 1982
(From Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago) Lord Bridge of Harwich asked: ‘. . when the prosecution proposes to tender in evidence a written statement of confession signed by the accused and the accused denies that he is the author of the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Cletus Timothy, Dexter Reid and Sheldon Lewis v The State PC 22-Apr-1999
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendants appealed their convictions for murder. They asserted that the police had extracted confessions by torture, and that other evidence had been obtained by oppression.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89878